MathGroup Archive 2008

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Player Pro and Packages

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg87931] Re: Player Pro and Packages
  • From: AES <siegman at>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:21:11 -0400 (EDT)
  • Organization: Stanford University
  • References: <> <fu4fnb$nkc$>

In article <fu4fnb$nkc$1 at>,
 "Ingolf Dahl" <ingolf.dahl at> wrote:

> Maybe Wolfram should ask Adobe for an advice, how to ensure that behind the
> content created for Adobe Reader is a genuine Adobe Acrobat license. The
> problems involved seem to be quite equivalent. ;-)

I do hope this comment was sarcastic or sardonic, rather than serious?

Is not the great virtue of PDF that it's a more or less fully _open_, 
fully specified, and widely distributed format or standard, made openly 
available by Adobe so that anyone with adequate coding skills can create 
documents or display documents in that format _without_ having an Adobe 
license at either end.  

I understand that Adobe does retain some kind of ownership over it, and 
they certainly sell tools that third parties can purchase to create or 
read PDFS.  And, there are security links and password protections that 
document creators can put into PDF documents to limit what recipients 
can do with a document.  

But my understanding was that the second paragraph above was nonetheless 
more or less true (except for some unfortunate garbage related to 
embedded fonts).  Is this not the case?

  • Prev by Date: Re: DifferenitalD vs CapitalDifferenitalD
  • Next by Date: Re: Print[Plot] vs Print[text,Plot]?
  • Previous by thread: RE: Re: Player Pro and Packages
  • Next by thread: RE: Re: Player Pro and Packages